Does the gemorahs answer of b'she'Kanu mi'Yado go only on the Seifa where the Shabbos pay is Nivla or even on the Reisha when the guard is Patur?
If the latter, why is the guard patur if he accepted achrayus even though he's not paid for Shabbos? Also, the whole wording of the Reisha doesn't seem to fit in with an akimta of accepting responsibility
Daniel Gray, Toronto Canada
1) The answer of b'she'Kanu mi'Yado goes both on the Reisha and the Seifa.
2) In the Reisha, even though he made a Kinyan, the guard is liable only if something went wrong on a weekday. On Shabbos he is always Patur because he is not getting paid. "b'she'Kanu mi'Yado" is effective only to create liability even though he is guarding holy items, for which -- without a Kinyan -- the guard is Patur, as stated in the Mishnah above (56a). The Kinyan is not effective to create liability on Shabbos also.
(See Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 306:4, who says that because the Shomer is not getting paid on Shabbos, he is Patur. The Bi'ur Halachah (DH Lishmor) writes that, even so, the case referred to is where a Kinyan was made, because otherwise the Shomer is not liable for guarding seeds which are in the ground, since "Karka" is exempt from liability, as stated in the Mishnah on 56a.)
3) I do not see where the wording of the Reisha suggests that he is not accepting responsibility. On the contrary, I could argue that the fact that the Reisha states, "therefore he is not responsible on Shabbos," suggests that it is only on Shabbos that he could never be responsible, while on weekdays he might sometimes be responsible. This would be when he made a Kinyan to accept weekday responsibility even for Hekdesh items.
Kol Tuv,
Dovid Bloom